Repost of arguments from a right-wing friend of mine

[Travis Retriever]

I've heard of that. I haven't seen it, though.

My retort to Moore:




(A violation of Godwin's Law, I know, but still funny.)

[Tom S. Fox]

Strawman. Noone says that gun control makes killing impossible. It only makes it harder.

[MrBogosity]

It makes it impossible to do with boxcutters.

Anyone who wanted to could carry guns on planes before 1968. Go on, check the statistics and see how many hijackings there were. Go on.

[Travis Retriever]

Strawman. Noone says that gun control makes killing impossible. It only makes it harder.

*facepalm*
Read my previous post, the one with the italics in it.  I said just this, that it's unrealistic to think any solution could make killing via guns impossible.  I mean, how did you get that message from the picture you quoted? You realize that, by accusing me of a strawman when I wasn't committing a strawman, is in fact, committing a strawman.
Sheesh. 
As for you point, about making it making killing harder, I think I've already addressed this enough times.
Man...

@Shane:  I can't parse your post. ^^;

[MrBogosity]

What do you have trouble understanding?

[Travis Retriever]

It makes it impossible to do with boxcutters.

You mean that gun control laws make it impossible to defend yourself against people with boxcutters on the planes?
I didn't get this part at all. ^^;

Anyone who wanted to could carry guns on planes before 1968. Go on, check the statistics and see how many hijackings there were. Go on.

Did you mean: "Anyone who wanted to could carry guns on planes could do so before 1968. Go on, check the statistics and see how many hijackings there were. Go on."?

[MrBogosity]

No, gun ownership makes it impossible for people armed only with boxcutters to commit terrorist acts. Think of how quickly 9/11 would have been over if even just the pilots had had guns!

Of course, in all likelihood, with that possibility they likely wouldn't have tried it at all. That's the thing: the protections you get from gun ownership are the unseen. Remember Bastiat.

And yes, that last part is what I meant, and is phrased as proper English.

[Travis Retriever]

No, gun ownership makes it impossible for people armed only with boxcutters to commit terrorist acts. Think of how quickly 9/11 would have been over if even just the pilots had had guns!

That explains the point of the picture. 

Of course, in all likelihood, with that possibility they likely wouldn't have tried it at all.

That's the thing: the protections you get from gun control are the unseen. Remember Bastiat.

These quotes don't follow.  It makes more sense if you meant "That's the thing: the protections you get from gun ownership rights are the unseen. Remember Bastiat.

Unless you meant that gun control laws, while they do increase overall crime, do have some protection, just not as much as allowing people to own guns.
I'm guessing it's the former.  It just makes more sense, especially coming from you.

[MrBogosity]

You're right, that should have been "gun ownership." Duh, I are a college graduate...

[BZ987654]

No offense meant, but I am pretty sure I could defend myself from someone with just a box cutter.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Cept you're not allowed to.  Regulations say so.

Feel safe now?  ^^

[MrBogosity]

No offense meant, but I am pretty sure I could defend myself from someone with just a box cutter.

How come eight military-trained pilots couldn't?

[BZ987654]

How come eight military-trained pilots couldn't?

That's something I wonder to this day. I do have 6 years of Muay Thai kickboxing and 7 years of Brazilian Ju Jistu though.

[MrBogosity]

Probably hard to do when you're strapped into a chair behind the controls of an airplane.

[BZ987654]

Probably hard to do when you're strapped into a chair behind the controls of an airplane.

That is true, which is why guns are needed in the cockpits.